A few years back when mp3 was new I read an article about it and how it was gonna replace CDs and whatever. In the article they were claiming that they had run tests on it, and that no one could reliably tell the difference between anything encoded over 192kbps.

I'm pretty sure they were talking about the fraunhofer encoder at the time, but don't quote me on that.


Anyway, since listening conditions have generally improved, and I suspect people are better able to tell the difference between the higher levels of audio qualities nowadays, I said I'd run the test again to see if it still applies.


So, download and listen to this file.

It's a lossless wma containing two copies of the same audio clip from Walhalla. One of the copies is encoded at 192kbps, and the other is encoded at 320kbps. Both are cbr joint stereo, and are done with the LAME encoder (I tried the Fraunhofer first, but LAME gave better results).
I chose Walhalla coz this clip has a big spectral and dynamic range. It's plenty to put any encoder to the test.



I know it's easy to cheat ... but I would appeal to your better nature: listen first, vote, and then cheat to find out if you're right.


Edit: Wav file of the above, for those you can't play wmas

well i'm near to deaf actually ,, but the 2nd one sounds a little bit sharper,,, so that could be the 320kb/s one..

and this moron voted wrong ,,<--- me is

.. hmm .. it sounds difficult .. at least for me .. anyway, i'll try later ..

yeah i agree the second one sounds little better so i think thats 320

.. well .. i can't get the difference tbh ... i'm deaf or have crappy headphones or what ? .. .. no vote ..

Can't hear any difference on my crappy speakers at work.
Anyway, I think I wouldn't hear the difference on any speakers.
I'm not good at it.

I think the second sample is better. Sound is crispy and bass is clear
But it's late and I read comments first so maybe not

Well, the answer is ....




The only difference I can hear between the two is the really high stuff, there's a certain sharpness and clarity about the 320 one, and it has some really high hats or something that you can't really hear in the 192.

ofcourse,, i'm the main influence of 80% of all posts here

^^^

True!

dude.... cant tell the difference between the two

too much loud music.

Partially deaf now

I listened to it many times today

First difference that I've heard is the bass. In first sample it's noisy. I didn't know if it's so raw or distorted
Voice echo is longer in second sample . My imagination?

Yeah I hear some details in the end of 320 sample

How about another test?

hard to tell really u need good speakers/headphones and good ears to really hear the difference , but i got it right
u can tell by the bass in the first song it sounds a bit crappy i think the second one is way more sharper
nice topic

I can't really hear the bass thing ye're talking about, but I guess everyone hears stuff differently.


Just out of curiousity, I did a difference on the two files.

Clips difference

This is the sound that is present in the 320, but not in the 192. It's really quite quiet, so you'll need to bump the volume up quite a bit to hear it.

There's a suprising amount of vocal in this too.

Any suggestions as to what?


It needs to be something I have on CD of course
(or someone else can do it if they like)

wow ! how did u do this ?

OK I've made samples. One is 192 kbit and another 320
This isn't trance or even music (well actually it's part of a song). It's industrial, sounds like upcoming storm.
If you want to play with your ears, check this. It's tough

I made some other samples like this: 2 strange sounds and 3 rock samples. Let me now if you want more

edit: Direct link didn't work properly

I'm not sure that this is the best test of an encoder really, this sample is relatively easy to encode, so there's almost no difference.


There's absolutely no difference that I can hear between the first minute in each, but there are tiny differences in just the last 10 secs.





I inverted one of the samples and added it to the other. It's not the best way certainly, but it gives an idea of where the differences are.

My mistake. I could cut it later
I hear the difference in the last 20 seconds when thunders appear

I have this song also in mpc format and the bitrate oscillate between 220-320 so I thought it could do the job technically

First is 192kbps, last is 320kbps

Thats the one i chose, the Second clip has more bass and has an overall richer sound quality